That "extremely unpopular" rarely if ever polled below 40%, and the first poll after the passage had it more popular by a 49-40 margin. I'm sure that will be ignored too, though.

All this really tells me, as mentioned above is that the two party system is RUINING our country. Everything just winds up boiling down to us vs them, no shades of gray, no alternate viewpoints or ideas, just two rigid ideologies butting heads time and time again, doing everything they can possibly do to discredit the other side. And what does this create? A horrible divide where a country has become split so deeply that people begin viewing half of their own countrymen as an enemy. Its sad and pathetic.

Honestly at this point in my life I'm so burnt out on politics I've forced myself to just become oblivious to it. Does anybody really care whats best for our nation anymore? Or has it just become status quo to blindly support your "side" no matter what the issue or consequence? I yearn for a country that can rationally debate and decide on an issue without nearly stating a second civil war every time something doesn't go a certain way. I feel like I live in a nation full of 5 year olds sometimes. :shakehead:

It's not enough to know something about yourself if you don't learn from it. If you know you're a conspiracist, one would think you'd be more skeptical of your gut reactions. Seriously... national martial law? If that ever happens in my lifetime, I will personally track you down so I can let you feed me my shoe. That's how ludicrous the notion is.

When polled on the actual contents of the proposal, the bill has always been popular with a majority of people. When asked about the bill in a generic sense, thanks in large part to all the misinformation, the bill is less popular, but most certainly not "extremely" unpopular. Furthermore, the polls have consistently shown Democrats to be trusted on the issue of health care reform over Republicans. Most often, the polls have been fairly close, and since the bill's passage the most recent poll has shown 49% happy compared with 40% upset. (Yes I am well aware that it's just one poll, but it's the only one we've got taken entirely after the bill's passage.)

The people who are against the bill are certainly vehemently against it, but the fact that they are louder does not make the bill "extremely unpopular." If gathering in large crowds and making noise is all that's necessary to prove you represent the will of America, we'd have had comprehensive immigration reform already.

Democrats knew health care reform was a sticky issue, and they knew that back in 2008 when they campaigned on the issue and won. While the Democrats are at risk of losing the House, it's not a foregone conclusion, and most certainly not something worth creating a martial law conspiracy over. This may be a shock to you, but Congress has changed leadership many times over the years without conspiracies and martial law to prevent it from happening ;)

Pan... that sounds just a ridiculous now as when people said the same of Bush staging a coup to stay in power.

Americans really have an unnatural fear of their elected officials. It's comical.

Distrust and scepticism is healthy but really...

Please, don't lump pan's paranoia (or WinchesterAA's for that matter) in with the rest of America. I don't think I've ever met a single person in real life who has expressed such paranoid thoughts openly (barring, you know, the homeless guy down the street).

There are two threads going on this subject so I'm kind of lumping all of my responses together here.

I agree with pan that the partisan polarization in this country is tearing it apart. Where we would probably diverge is in our opinion of how it is perpetuated. I tend to think it's twofold.
1. heightened party loyalty makes it easier for politicians to run campaigns and get elected
because,
2. heightened party loyalty makes it easier for the people to follow politics because they can essentially be told what to like and not to like based on information that is rubber-stamped and funneled to them

I'll probably get in trouble for saying it, but many, many people in this country are just plain lazy when it comes to thinking about 'important issues.' That's why you have so many republicans still making the 'Obama + healthcare reform = Obama's socialist healthcare reform' regardless of how much the legislation was gutted under republican pressure. Thanks to this phenomenon of hard-wired political thinking, the viral word 'socialism' is now indelibly imprinted on the Obama presidency. Democrats do it, too, but not as skillfully as the republicans - they are the masters of this kind of viral thought dissemination.

And, since I suspect that most of this wave of violence and mischief is probably based on that kind of 'infected' thinking (taken to an extreme) in my mind they seem like stupidity of nightmarishly comic proportions - like coyote's quest to 'get' the roadrunner. This is not revolution, it is temper tantrums.

Wow, I held back a lot of 'viral' metaphors, but really, when you think about it there are a lot of similarities that can be made. It's kind of freaking me out, lol. Must write down.

---------- Post added at 08:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 AM ----------

Also, even though I would have liked the bill to be stronger, I am very pleased that it passed. It's only natural for a change of this magnitude to upset a proportion of the population, but given 30-40 years, which is only a blink of an eye in the evolution of a society, the right to healthcare will seem as natural as many of the other rights and benefits we take for granted in this country...I liked the bit that shauk posted (can't remember which thread it was in).

the republicans have brand identity problem.
they have been using, officially or not, an identity-based language for a long time....one typically "is" conservative as a matter of disposition or essence and one is invited to fill in the viewpoints of the moment as a way of modulating that inner core. so the big shift has been from conservatism based on a resistance to change in the world to a conservatism based on resistance to change at the level of some imaginary inward essence or being. turns out that reality pulverized alot of the older statements that gave content to this essence before cowboy george arrived on stage...since then, they've adopted a position of NO. whatever it is, NO. this to maintain brand identity by maintaining a sense that despite everything conservatives are still a coherent discrete demographic. whence the tea baggers, whence their utility. they're bodies that can exploit the conservative-friendly media apparatus to get air time.

the democrats have never been able or willing to counter this retro-identity politics. so they play a different, diffuse game.

there are other, material explanations for why it is that conservative identity politics has been able to take hold. but the fact is that cultural power is a function of repetition and of repetition to set the terms of debate, to frame issues in and frame them out. what i think we're seeing is a conflict between systems of legitimation then...conservativespeak on the way out as a function of its obvious problems with describing the world compounded by the particular actions of the bush people...but no single alternative discourse is in a position to replace it. i mean, it's not like neoliberal-speak suddenly disappeared, though it should have.

fading empires look like this.


it's pretty straightforward, the explanation for the division in the land.

how clever. making political actions an expression of the soul rather than mechanisms for social maintenance and development. therefore every bit of legislation is either a balm or an affront to one's personal integrity. I think you are right about that.

the obvious difference in this case (of sore losership) is that there are well payed, GOP-backed media figure fueling the fire of the rabble rousers

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. its all about perceptions.

to quote the infamous jack sparrow....'sticks and stones'

David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, had something to say on this:

Waterloo | FrumForum

you were doing alright til you threw the race card. Then you became jesse jacksons brother.

It seems that the liberals have had people doing the exact same thing, for instance George Soros backing moveon.org.

because George Soros has the same sway over millions of people that Limbaugh and Beck do?

puh-lease

Or that many of the Tea Party rallies and events are underwritten and organized by Washington insiders and corporate lobbyists, with more patriotic names than MoveOn - Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity - and actively promoted (not just reported on) by FOX et al.

Or that much of the opposition to the health reform legislation has been funded, to the tune of more than $20 million, by the insurance and business interests in the form of patriotic sounding astro-turf organizations.

Oh, OH... why's it gotta be "brother," huh?! :D

...

Hah! Race card? Cracking open a history book and talking about blacks is now throwing the race card? Pfft, I'm talking about "middle class" white bread Americans throwing man tantrums over something that might actually help them and certainly won't ruin their day despite what they bray into the bull horn. I mentioned women gaining the vote, too. No AAA for that? Hmm. Not as touchy a subject for cold-dead-hands conservatives, apparently.

Since moveon.org claims several million members, yes. But if the requirement is demagogues who do nothing but get people wound up over silly issues, look no further then Al Sharpton.

"Party Loyalty" is one thing, violence and fear are another. It IS WRONG.


BTW, when did Socialism become a "swear word"??? It's like the Red scare/witch hunt/ all over again.....history repeating itself and no one ever learns. Why do the Republicans hate those with less so much? I think it's because GREED IS THEIR GOD.

It seems wrong when the "1%" that HAS IT ALL tries to stop the 99% (that still, at least, does have a vote) and The 99% is just trying to merely survive, stay in a house, have heat and or gas and have health care for themselves and their kids. Not to mention, let their kids feel safe in their neighborhoods and schools and perhaps have a change of a future.

When and why did America become so selfish and hateful?

I am loving this whole Obama presidency thing, to think I was all against him being president, (I was going to do the Alec Baldwin thing and leave the country when he won) All the years I paid taxes and didnt get squat out of it, woot!!!! Bought another house in 2009, It has been more than 5 years since the last, guess what? I recieved $8,000 extra dollars in my return this year, while I rent my 1st house out for twice the amount of my mortgage on it. Thank you Obama and your minions.

I already recieve free health care, if you want to consider tri-care good health care, government run red tape, bullshit is what it is, I prefer the VA hospital but it is a 45 minute ride, If this bill makes all you democrats fell like winners, then celebrate, dance in the streets, i believe it has weakend the country, not for the fact of what it is, but how it was obtained.

would you have preferred sister? :lol:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/customa...tar1168_12.gif

I will be sure to take your opinions as seriously as I take your avatar.

would that be as serious as those that had avatars of bush as hitler, or a monkey, or looking like arafat? any number of ridiculous bush avatars? or just the stupid ones based on democrats?

which one of us did that?

Isn't it interesting that when the havenots covet the stuff of the haves - it's NOT greed. But when the haves want to keep the havenots from forcibly taking their stuff, it IS called greed.

not as funny as lumping every have-not into the "lazy people unwilling to work and wanting everything for free" category

Where exactly did I lump all havenots in that category? Please attempt to understand the concept of the word "when" as a conditional. See, "when" hunnychile says this:

...she is coveting and it is indeed greed. When she does not say things like that, she is not coveting. When she elects proxy thugs (referencing her saying she has nothing but a vote) for the purpose of taking money on her behalf, she covets and it is greed. When she works hard and advances in an existing framework which rewards hard work, she is not taking from others.

You people and this ridiculous notion that there is a finite amount of "wealth" to "share" and that the only way to get more of it is to take it from others. The nation's and World's wealth has grown to reflect the contributions of the people.

Those kinds of images are just as worthless.

You probably think of yourself as a "have", hunh Cim?

I wouldn't call it greed to have the desire for shelter, food, and safety, especially for one's children. As far as not willing to have one's tax dollars spent helping those without those things, I don't know if I'd call it greed, but I would say it is at least a little bit selfish.

This assumes that all things are equitable and fair. When you leave too much to free and unfettered market, we get disproportionate values, including situations where one will work two or three jobs and still not have enough money to lift his or her family from poverty. You can't expect an out-of-work factory worker to suddenly say, "Hey, maybe I'll be a medical doctor now...." Let's not forget how wealth is generated from bottom to top.

No more than you.

---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 PM ----------

Your post conveys the classic victim's mentality: "The deck is stacked against me, I will never do any better (without the help of the government)." You and I both know the hundreds/thousands of stories of people rising from very little and into something remarkable with nothing but determination on their side. I will have to take it offline sometime and tell you the story of my father. Suffice to say, you will NEVER convince me that the deck is stacked against anyone at this point in our time.

You are being very assumptive here.

You can't tell me that most economic systems don't create inequalities that are difficult to bear.

Everyone can't rise from very little into something remarkable. A system that creates disproportionate wealth requires, well, disproportionate wealth distribution.

Everyone in the world can't be rich.

Do you think people always choose to be impoverished? Maybe we just need to make The Secret mandatory reading.

Your experience as an American is that this people are fringe minorities. From the outside looking in, however, this is what we see. We see the paranoid, the tea partiers who are terrified of some vague socialist demon, we see the extreme and bizarre rhetoric of death panels and wild accusations of socialism, fascism, Nazism.

I used to wonder if this was an isolated thing, but I'm becoming more convinced that it's a product of American sensationalist media not presenting the moderate point of view. It's gotten to the point that for those of us on the outside there doesn't seem to be anything in the middle, and it becomes something of a farce.

This is the face your nation is presenting to the world.

I would consider it a problem.

Anecdotes mean nothing. There's plenty of data showing that people rarely make it out of the class they're born into, and that's not because people love living in poverty.Well yes, but that observation isn't exactly controversial. The vast majority of us are well aware that the news has become more focused on ratings and less on quality (one might argue due to the for-profit business model). But also, as much as I'm all for being a good world citizen, the job our news does of conveying America to other countries is the least of my concerns on the topic.

Thank you, Baraka (and Smethy, too) for jumping on this one. This idea that everyone can just 'raise themselves up' out of poverty is ridiculous. Our system and the nature of our communities requires that there be distinct classes including a lower class. Who is going to do the work that they do? Where exactly are all these people going to go? It irritates me to no end to hear people say things like that, esp. considering that most of the people who say it tend to be those who are against helping them regardless of what their abilities to 'get ahead' are. Not only is it incredibly naive but its an insult to the millions of people working multiple jobs just to make enough money to keep a roof over their family's heads. Get a grip.

How is this new avatar, SM? Better?, I didnt see much of your avatar bashing when Bush was president, and there were plenty of Bush photoshopped avatars all over this forum. To me they are all fooking jokers, wanting to win so badly they will push/force through a weak at best bill so their demi-god campaigns for them come this november. And for the Republicans on the hill, they should all be stripped of their health insurance, to see what it is like to worry about being terminally ill and the risk of losing everything you have worked for because of an illness.

A cagey answer to a cagey question. Fair enough, I'll come straight out with my point.

The "haves" who have originated this philosophy you espouse are "haves" at a level you and I will literally never aspire to, nor will our children or our grandchildren. Their level of affluence so far exceeds that of us mere mortals it's hard for us to even comprehend, and for the most part it's a multi-generational legacy of super wealth that the current holders did nothing to earn beyond being the lucky sperm that became the heir. Their interests are profoundly entrenched in maintaining the status quo--it's gotten them where they are, and they have the resources, you better damn well believe, to keep things that way. And they have access to the very minds of America through their ownership of the media.

So they make middle-class-folk feel like they're the ones the government is going to take money from, that they have to fight any sort of tax hike for the rich. They make you feel the persecution that they themselves feel, so you sing out at any risk to their standing.

In my opinion, middle-class conservatives are complete patsies. Just my opinion, you're free to feel differently. I'd like, before you reflexively come back at me, though, for you to think for just a second about where you get those conservative thoughts from. You have to get your notion of the virtue of hard work from somewhere, for instance. Your sense of the cause-and-effect nature of labor and reward. I know that probably seems self-evident, but they could just as easily be memes instilled in you from sources beyond your immediate grasp.

In some posts above there is some reference about people from lower classes movbing upward. I'd like to comment on that.

My father started out coming from an extremely poor 1 parent household. He had 7 half sisters and 1 half brother, who's father died in WW2. After his death for whatever reason, my grandmother and aunts and uncle became extremely poor. Then she had my dad.

As his siblings grew, one sister married a vice president of Tappan, one became a cartoonist for Hanna and Barbera, the brother joined the Air Force and was on a team to rescue the hostages in 1979 (the mission never went).

And then there was my dad. His mom was so poor she tried to sell him after his birth. They were evicted and finally "given" a shanty in the worst part of town by the church. My dad grew up in literally a 1 room dirt floor house in Mansfield Ohio, where that was unheard of because at the time the town was extremely wealthy.

My dad kicked and thumped his way through high school, never being the smartest or best but he graduated. He met my mom, who herself didn't came from a poorer family.

My dad worked his ass off and was eventually able to get his engineering degree and become one of the foremost authorities in his field. Later, he bought his own company. He became one of the richest men in the area.

He was also lucky to have been given opportunities that came from government programs that do not exist today.

So, while in the past it was very possible through hard work and government help to "pull oneself up", it is next to impossible today.

Why is that? Because the programs that existed and helped my father no longer exist or are underfunded but programs that help the rich get wealthier became the norm. The jobs left and where you could go to college and work and get a degree in the field with that combination as my dad did, doesn't exist. Now, you have to go to college and get yourself heavily into debt hoping when you get out you find a job in your field that will pay you enough to pay the loans back and live on.

America once prided itself on being the land of opportunity... is today the land of fighting just to keep what little you have or IF you are lucky and in that top 5% getting as much as you can and not giving a damn about the people losing everything.

And I'd say that's absolutely not an accident.

nice tap dance. the images are indeed as worthless, but what about the opinions of those sporting them?

Seriously? I have to spell it out for you? When you go around with images of Obama as messiah, or Bush as vampire biting the statue of liberty, it makes you look like a juvenile idiot incapable of mature discourse and undermines your message. Would you like me to draw charts too? This is getting positively ridiculous.